Clearly, the Bush campaign is using Karl Rove¡¦s technique of attacking Senator John Kerry's Strengths.
The American Public seems to be swallowing this load of garbage.
It¡¦s time for a little turnabout.
If Bush wants to run the Attributes of Strength, Strong Leadership and Decisive Character, let's examine these qualities and weave a perspective for the undecided voter.
After all, if he's gonna make an issue out of it, shouldn't we?
Here's some of the talking points that I used:
Myth:
Myth 1 --> GW is a Strong and Decisive leader. He acted with authority after the events of 9/11¡¨
Oh yes?
First, I'd like to ask a few rhetorical questions;
1) Why should the President of this country be applauded for attacking Afghanistan after the single largest attack on American soil in the history of our country? TELL ME - WHAT ELECTED OFFICIAL WHOULD NOT HAVE COUNTER ATTACKED?
Doesn't that speak to the root of the "Strength" Issue? When 3,000 American citizens die from a terror attack, our leaders had NO CHOICE but to react.
So, how does having the support of 92% of every citizen in this country, and the support of nearly every nation on the fact of this planet, make GW a Strong and Decisive Leader in the war on Terror ¡V at least in Afghanistan?
Sure, things have changed now. Cowboy warrior Bush is itching to exterminate some terrorist wherever he can find them. Funny how that's changed because;
On May 5th, 2001 AG John Ashcroft outlines 7 strategic budget goals for the Department of Justice. Counter Terrorism is NOT included anywhere. (Source:
http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=39039)
What's really tragic about that little AG gaffe is that on May 8th, 1998, Janet Reno make Counter Terrorism the DOJ's TOP PRIORITY.
Here's some more interesting facts about this country¡¦s pre-9/11 Anti-Terrorism Preparedness¡K
0 - Number of meetings held by Vice President Cheney's counterterrorism task force (which was created in May 2001)
0 - References to Al Qaeda in Dr. Rice's 2000 Foreign Affairs article listing Bush's top foreign affairs priorities
0 - References to Al Qaeda in Secretary Rumsfeld 2001 memo outlining national security priorities
2 - Number of National Security Council meetings on terrorism prior to 9-11 (out of approximately 100).
8 - Months the administration sat on an "urgent" request from its counterterrorism chief (Clarke) to meet about al Qaeda.
2) We waited 6 weeks to respond to Afghanistan with an Air Assault. We put approximately 250 Special Forces personnel on the ground to help coordinate the attacks.
Anyone remember Desert Storm? How long did it take for the US to mass a coalition of over half a million troops and place them squarely in defense of Saudi Arabia?
About 6 weeks.
In fact, it took 5 days from the time Saddam invaded Kuwait before the first US troops began to arrive in Saudi Arabia. (Source: defenselink.mil - Iraq invades Kuwait, Aug. 2, 1990. Operation Desert Shield begins, Aug. 7. )
The fact is, Afghanistan STILL harbors most of the leadership components of Al-Qaeda. It's shared Boarder with Pakistan is the location where 75% of AQ deaths and captures take place.
Here's an interesting news report citing the success of GW's war on terror, specifically in Afghanistan;
"Intelligence indicates some al Qaeda training camps have been reactivated along Pakistan's border with southeastern Afghanistan, defense and intelligence sources told CNN."
As reported by CNN on AUGUST 5, 2004. A month ago.
(Source:
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/asiapcf/08/05/qaeda.camps/)
"Decisive"? I don't think so.
3) Over 80% of the US causalities in the Iraq war occurred AFTER Major Combat Operations were declared complete.
Once again, the US Military executed a lightning fast campaign-exactly what they are trained to do - exactly what they are mandated to do.
SOP for any type of military engagement is to turn over the "management" of the post combat environment to the State Department of the US.
This did not happen. Instead, the DOD maintained control of the Post Iraq situation, and under Donald Rumsfeld¡¦s leadership, the peace was not won.
Clearly, the post war planning of the Bush administration neglected a plan to stabilize the Iraq political environment, return services to it's people, and implement a legitimate government.
The results of this not-so-decisive leadership are the following:
Over 1,000 US Soldiers Killed
Over 7,000 US Soldiers Wounded
Over 11,000 Iraqi Civilians Killed
From the US perspective, nearly 9 times the number of casualties have resulted from "Peace" in Iraq than were inflicted during a time of "War".
A Decisive Blunder.
4) America is Safer.
We've head this one approximately 127 times, and 7 times during just one of Bush's speeches. Here are the facts:
1) In 2001 there were 124 acts of terror globally.
In 2003, there was 175 acts - an increase of 41% - the highest incidence of terrorism in 20 years. (Source - US State Department)
2) Our Boarders are nearly open. "America has lost control of its borders," said Steve Camarota, research director for Center for Immigration Studies
In fact, according to the center for Immigration Studies, in 2003, approximately 78,000 illegal aliens are from countries that are of "Special Concern" in the war on terror. And we're not talking about Mexicans. In the first 9 months of 2004, 122 Pakistanis were caught crossing the boarder.
Less Than 10 Percent of the Nation's Border Agents Secure the Northern Border
Of the 9,500 Boarder Patrol Agents that patrol both US boarders, 1,000 are assigned to patrol the boarder with Canada, despite the FACT that Canadian Security and Intelligence Services acknowledge that Al Qaeda maintain active cells and personnel in their country. Our government knows about this.
(Source Washington Post, 12/25/02)
3) Port Security - Currently, we are only inspecting two percent of containers entering the U.S.
The US Coast Guard has requested 5.4 Billion dollars over the next 10 years to asses and correct the vulnerabilities of the nations ports. The Bush Administration will not request those funds until 2005. In fact, their first request will be for $46 Million Dollars for "Port Protection"
ABC News conducted a test to determine how safe our Ports were by sending a container of Depleted Uranium from Jakarta to Los Angeles. Customs didn't detect it - TWICE! (Source
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/Primetime/sept11_uranium030910.html)
(Source
http://hollings.senate.gov/~hollings/statements/2003327453.html)
4) The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has NOT increased the human security (Security Personnel), the security infrastructure (Thickness of Nuclear Containment), or the intelligence security (Employee background checks) of it's over 100 Nuclear Facilities.
(Source :
http://www.thebulletin.org/issues/2003/mj03/mj03hirsch.html) and (Democratic Members of the House Select Committee on Homeland Security, America at Risk, 1/04])
5) Bush is Strong on the War on Terror and attacking Iraq was key to that war.
Holy Crap! Are you kidding? Where do we start?
First, the CIA disagrees:
"Analysts at the Central Intelligence Agency have complained that senior administration officials have exaggerated the significance of some intelligence reports about Iraq, particularly about its possible links to terrorism, in order to strengthen their political argument for war, government officials said."
And then, the FBI agrees with the CIA DISAGREEING (that one was for Rumsfeld):
"At the Federal Bureau of Investigation, some investigators said they were baffled by the Bush administration's insistence on a solid link between Iraq and Osama bin Laden's network. "We've been looking at this hard for more than a year and you know what, we just don't think it's there," a government official said."
(Source:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/02/international/middleeast/02INTE.html)
Second, that pesky 9/11 Commission doesn't think that Saddam had anything to do with Al Qaeda either...
(Source:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/06/cheney.911/)
So, Instead of including the 30 or so pages of the 9/11 commission report that completely discredits this conclusion (which VP Dick Cheney seems to ignore) here¡¦s a statement from another guy¡K
"August 7, 2003 - Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, one of the main architects for the invasion of Iraq, admitted for the first time that Iraq had nothing to do with the September 11 "terrorist" attacks"
(Source :
http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/080703Leopold/080703leopold.html)
It's no wonder that Bush opposed the formation of the 9/11 commission in the first place:
(Source:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/15/attack/main509096.shtml)
It seems that he didn¡¦t want anyone to know how we acquired our intelligence. You know, the intelligence that warned us not to "Let the smoking gun become a mushroom cloud"?
Yea - that intelligence.
But opposing the 9/11 commission wasn't enough. He also opposed a request by the commission to extend the investigation for 2 months:
(
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0119-02.htm)
Bush was shouted down and lost interest. So, he decided to cause some trouble somewhere else -
Bush initially opposed the Homeland Security Act, but since Senator Lieberman had the votes to pass his bill called "National Homeland Security and Combating Terrorism Act", Bush suddenly got on board and sponsored the Bill. Then, he removed all labor rights of those who serve under the act.
(Source: www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/11/25/homeland.security)
But, one would think that once the Homeland Security Department was up and running that we could all breath a sigh of relief.
Except that:
"Homeland Security Intelligence Still Not Shared With Federal and State Officials."
Wasn't that the whole purpose of the HSD? It's not just the pretty colors, right? But;
As of this year, 13% if Federal Officials believe that the new level of intelligence sharing between federal, state, and local authorities was adequate.
(Source: Select Committee on Homeland Security Democrats, 1/04)
Well, at least they got funded...
"Bush Cuts Funding for State and Local Homeland Security Grants by $800 Million." (Source : Department of Homeland Security, 2005 Budget in Brief, www.dhs.gov)
Whoops.
And even while Ted Kennedy is prevented from flying because he is on a Transit Authorities watch list, according to the Congressional Quarterly on 3/02/04...
"There is Still No Unified Terrorist Watch List" In fact, no one agency maintains a comprehensive list of database. In fact, on March 2004, some of the DHS officials suggest that "a consolidated list would not be necessary".
Oh.
Still, we are, more or less, at war. So when you've finished schooling your Republican Friends about the lies of GW, I'm sure they'll start to toss this olde but goody around...
"Kerry is a Flip Flopper. He says at first he voted FOR the $87 Billion Supplemental and then he voted AGAINST it.
Ask them this one simple question:
"So, if he voted FOR it the first time, Why didn't it pass?"
After letting that exquisite moment of stunned silence effuse through the air, let them off the hook - but not just yet.
Let them know that;
-- The Bush administration threatened for the first time Tuesday to veto an $87 billion package for Iraq and Afghanistan (October 22, 2003, WASHINGTON (AP))
Why did Bush threaten a veto? Because John Kerry and Joseph Biden proposed that because we are at war, the US government should follow Standard Operating Procedure and roll back a part of Bush¡¦s tax cut for the top 1% of America's wealthiest.
You know 'Shared Sacrifice'? (Although I think Senator Charlie Rangel on 05/05/2004 was talking about re-instituting the DRAFT, not tax cuts. Kids go to war but the rich keep their money. Sorry, I digress).
You see, in WWI, WWII, and Vietnam, this is how we managed the financial costs associated with War time activities.
In fact "In 1943, America's most affluent households faced a 93 percent tax rate on all their income over $200,000. The next year, 1944, the nation's top tax rate would rise even higher, to 94 percent on income over $200,000¡Xthe highest rate in American history." (Us Bureau of Labor and Statistics)
Even though Bush has raided social security to help fund the war effort, he decided that rolling back a tax cut on the top 1% of Americans was MORE IMPORTANT than our troops.
BUSH threatened to KILL the supplemental Funding. So actually, BUSH FLIP FLOPPED.
According to a head count of probable Senator votes, Kerry knew that the new bill, sans tax rollback, would pass easily.
So, he stood on a protest vote.
The bottom line? The tax cuts that GW instituted are valued at 680 Billion Dollars. But rather than take back less than 13% of that cut, we are now borrowing money to give to Iraq.
(Source:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-03-16-kerry-veterans_x.htm)
Not to mention one little tidbit of non-reported info -
It wasn't $87 Billion for the Troops. It was $67. The other $20 Billion dollars (or, about the same amount of money that would have been required to provide health care for 11 Million children under the age of 18) was designated as a BLANK CHECK that would be used to "Rebuild Iraq."
"We have to borrow that $10 billion ourselves to give it to Iraq as a gift," said Representative Dana Rohrabacher, a conservative Republican from California
Edited for Typo
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(159 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
